The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #94506   Message #1843814
Posted By: Bill D
26-Sep-06 - 12:53 PM
Thread Name: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
zTake any interesting question about anything.
Ask "why?" and "how?"
Then take THAT answer and re-ask the why & how.
Eventually, you get to the point where you are asking why & how about the very existence of the universe.

The point is, as beardedbruce and Paul Burke have noted, a G-d or "intelligent creator" is not required to seek answers *until* you get to that ultimate question........and then, you see, it becomes a matter of choice.
   There are two possible choices at that point...1)"I think an intelligent "creative force" started it all", or 2)"I don't know how it all started and can't really imagine, so I make no assumptions."
   The universe runs according to laws of physics: whether you LIKE thinking that those laws were 'designed' or not is a personal one.

Choice #1 requires an assumption; a premise; a decision. It is, literally, a personal, subjective decision - that's why we CALL that decision "belief". The position "I don't know" is not a DISproof of religious beliefs, it is, like believing, just a decision.

Notice: The choices I refer to are logical choices, not temporal ones. We make MANY decisions and ask and 'answer' many questions without referring to the origin of the universe. "Who wrote the Bible?" for example, and "Should I eat off of dishes that have had forbidden food touching them?"....but when you ask "**WHY** are these questions relevant, and how can I answer them, the ultimate logical question IS, "Was there a creative force, power, intelligence at the beginning which CAN make these rules?"

It is perfectly possible to live one's life in a nice, happy, constructive way without 'BELIEVING' in a Supreme Creator, though not without confronting the question! There are various reason that we humans decide TO believe, or NOT to believe, but for some, 'believing' requires that one extra logical step that they are not willing to is just an extra assumption, and they don't like making extra assumptions without evidence...and they have a pretty strict notion of what constitutes good evidence.

So, we have these debates - some based on trying to answer intermediate questions about daily life, but all eventually leading to that logically ultimate question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"